Can an average person ever break 2000?

and

Wow, really?  I know 2000 is above average but the average person doesn't try very hard to get better.  In my experience these 10 year class C veterans have their favorite thing to study (they never look at anything other than openings or tactics etc), and they'll even go so far as to resist studying where they're weak. 

"I've been doing it this way for 10 years and I'm not going to stop now."  Not just class C, but IMO anyone below 2200 who has been there for many years.

OK so this sounds really bias, and maybe I'm totally wrong :)

Anyway, I think 100 out of 100 average people should reach 2000 if they "tried their best."  Seems I'm nearly alone on this though, so I'll think about it.

I agree, wafflemaster.

Chess players like to think that being good at chess means they are above average intelligence when it really doesn't. Being good at chess means being good at chess, and exactly nothing more. Some people are good at chess because it happens to suit their mental capabilities (note: the sum of which may not by every criteria become intelligence), and some people are good because they have put the work in.

Anyone can do reasonably well at chess. The main criterion is just whether or not they enjoy the game, I think. If you enjoy something enough, it's hard not to get better at it, whatever your 'intelligence'.

I've discussed this before, but I don't think there's any evidence that even world champions are especially intelligent. Of course they weren't dunces, but what we really see is a special concoction of enjoyment and dedication from a young age. Someone was telling me that if Magnus Carlsen was a scientist he'd be making big waves there, but I really can't see that that's a given. Who's to say he'd enjoy being a scientist as much? 

Fair enough, and I'd say from the discussions so far that a OTB rating is the  intended topic.  With the extra time available as well as analysis boards and opening data bases it is possible for average players to play a much better game online turn-based than OTB.  However many players don't take advantage of these resouces, in which case they can end up with an online rating lower than their OTB rating.

Hmm, well maybe just 99 out of 100 then

And of course It's easy for me to sit back, not studying chess currently, and say "well of course you'll get better if all you do is try"  I'll have a better understanding of it when I hit that wall myself, try 20 different things, and still don't see any improvement.

Well I agree with you too :p

I don't think world class players are all around gifted at all.  I think there's a much better probability that Carlsen would be a poor scientist. 

Also the internet speculations of "Bobby Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, et al have IQs of 180,190,200" make me laugh too, it's just ridiculous.

A 2000 chess rating, by definition, is significantly above average. That should answer your question.

2000+ is approx. top 4-5% of active tournament players in the US system.

btw, player #6 in the crosstable [note the fish in the 7th spot ] below achieved 2000 with I expect the most astonishing performance by a 1900 rated player of all time beating GM A. Ivanov in round 1, beating FM Weeramantry in round 2, drawing GM Stripunsky in round 3, drawing FM Belarousov in round 4, and beating FM Stoyko in round 5. 

Nevertheless, he is a 1936 rated player today and a very creative and fun player to play as well as a very friendly, energetic guy and certainly plays a very enterprising style of chess.

 http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199904244820-11095461

[tournament performance of 2693 by a 1915 in a 5 round tournament scoring 2.5/3 against FMs and 1.5/2 against GMs ... incredible!  I have been told it was a most remarkable sight to see him take down such formidable players game after game.]

^^If you play tournament chess, and study your games, find and correct one mistake at least in your play each game, you will get better.  I hit 2000 within 2 years of actively playing tournament chess despite full time school studies and intermittant health problems at the time; it's possible for anyone who enjoys the game, and is inspired by great games, and take the time to really delve into ideas and see whether or not they work and why.  Improvement is gradual though, it's unlikely that one day you'll randomly start taking down strong GMs...

I give my honest feeling, but I think it depends very much on when you started to learn chess 'vocabulary'. I would expect people who have already ingrained many patterns in their youth to be able to go much higher than those who have started as adults.

I also have the feeling that chess has become much more competitive than it was ~15 years ago. Don't forget that 2000 doesn't measure a skill level set in stone, but the ability to statistically perform better than people rated 1800, 1600, 1400, etc. 

But the truth is there isn't much data available on chess improvement at adult age for people trying really hard, because there aren't many people trying really hard

Except the average person doesn't even play chess at all.  So how can you say this?  He's asking if an average person has an aptitude to become rated over 2000.  Not what is the likelihood that a random person will someday break 2000.

This is actually a very important point. I guess most chess players are familiar with hitting a wall and then experiencing some breakthrough in their chess career because they manage to change a major habit in their play. But this can prove more and more difficult with time, because your bad habits may be what you derive satisfaction from. Or because you're not even aware of them. Or you're aware, but they give you the comfort of a well-known environment. What about junky gambits, flashy attacks, time-trouble addiction, indecisiveness, pet opening, routine thought process, avoidance of complications, etc. ? Who is ready to become a monk for one year to earn 150 rating points ?

Of course, if you're already 1700, have started chess early, and decide to take it to the next step, then 2000 is within reach. If you're 1400, I wouldn't be so optimistic...

...but actually few people know how to do this by themselves, and enjoy the process enough so that they can do it repeateadly.

Also I think we're not equal in our ability to process chess information we're exposed to : this is actually a very interesting topic - especially for chess teachers

Yes, very good list, and I'd bet at least one of those will ring true for any chess player who reads it.  We're all guilty of getting in a rut, and I think those who are more willing to work outside their comfort zone and learn new things are the ones who improve the most.

The answer to the original question is clearly "no". The way the Bell curve of the rating system is defined, a rating of 2000 corresponds to the top few percent of players. Clearly the 50th percentile (a median average player) will always be distinct from this.

Except the average person doesn't even play chess at all.  So how can you say this?  He's asking if an average person has an aptitude to become rated over 2000.  Not what is the likelihood that a random person will someday break 2000.

But leaving your comfort zone may be very tricky too : you have to fight your habits, sometimes you try to introduce new concepts in a awkward way (I remember making very bad decisions after a few lessons about exploiting space advantage - I started to systematically refuse exchanges, even if it meant moving a piece to  a very bad square...) and it messes up your game, or you're torn between your old style and the new one : ("shall I launch an attack now (old trend), or try to wait a little and go into a superior endgame (new skills) => you lose in time-trouble)

I started to play chess when I was already 17 years old. Much too old sadly. But I had a chance to meet GM George Koltanowski, and he observed several of my games. He told me that in order for me to really improve, I would need to play exactly the opposite of how I played. In my case, he instructed me to play gambits. It's not because gambits are strong or right. It was because, in his opinion, I was fairly weak tactically. He felt that by playing gambits I would be forced to think differently, and that in the long run I would benefit, even if in the short term I might get creamed. I guess the moral of the story points to what hicetnunc already said, that we must leave our comfort zone and force ourselves to think about the game in new ways. Those who can are the people who will benefit.

The advice in this thread has been excellent. Hicetnunc, Ty_Twadd and others have given some fantastic suggestions to improve.

One common mistake I've seen in this thread is the thought that since "I" did it, it must be doable for the average person. The implied suggestion is that "I'm average too". It took me a long time to realise that even though I never broke 2200 (I came really close), I still accomplished more than the vast majority of tournament players ever accomplished. 

To those players who have broken 2000, Be proud of your accomplishment! Not everybody can break 2000, let alone 2200.

The tournament halls are filled with players who are trying to break 2000. Yes, the ideas here will certainly help extremely motivated players to improve. But it's still unlikely that an adult who is currently 1500 here will ever break 2000. It does happen occasionally, but it is rare.

Don't despair though. Regardless of your rating, it is always possible to improve your game and get even more enjoyment out of the game we love!

Like learning languages, chess may need you to start early, or you will never sound "fluent."

Learning the game before you're 10 years old is a "big help" for how high you might rise later.  That seems a reasonable conjecture.

Indeed, how many adults can you interest in our "figurine war game," if they hadn't already learned it when they were young?

"top few percent"?

How about top few hundredths of a percent. You're looking at a group that is clearly far above the norm